July 2011 Archives

I read The Stage’s recent low pay/no pay issue with interest, writes Stuart Piper. As managing director of Cole Kitchenn Personal Management, my job is to protect the interests of the actors we represent, while as someone who has produced in theatre, I also know the realities of working to a budget.

Should an actor ever work for free? My answer is an unequivocal no, except if it is in aid of a worthwhile charity. The producers interviewed argue it would be impossible to pay full union rates in a small studio - but when producing in small studio spaces, I have been able to pay actors £400 per week at the New Players Theatre, £200 to £250 per week at the King’s Head and £300 to £350 per week at the Trafalgar Studios. Some have been plays, some have been musicals. So, when people are asked to perform on the fringe for nothing, for not even the cost of a travel card, I struggle to see the reasoning, other than that the producer hasn’t gone out to raise the required funds.

It’s true that it’s harder to pay at all when producing a large cast in a large musical - and I would therefore question whether or not large musicals are the best thing to produce on the fringe. Off-Broadway’s financial constraints have produced many pint-sized musicals and revues - London fringe producers should perhaps look to produce new British boutique musicals with two to six roles, where the actors can be paid.

Small cast shows can still get a transfer - Rent and Love Story are both shows without big chorus lines that made it to Broadway and West End from small theatres. Even on Bells Are Ringing, which did require a large ensemble, producer Jonathan Russell did a great job making sure he was able to pay everyone travel expenses, which actors on the fringe don’t often get.

Most of the debate seems to centre around no pay on the fringe, and work underneath national minimum wage. But I’ve also seen reports of actors complaining that their pay has steadily decreased in recent years, with many saying they are paid less than ten years ago.

My own experience doesn’t reflect this. Yes, I have had individual cases of pay being lower than it should. But across the board, I have not been experiencing actors’ overall earnings decreasing. Our agency experienced a 25% increase in turnover in our last end of year figures, which was our highest turnover in the history of our company, and we are set to better that in our next year. I think that’s because in this ever-changing industry, we look at their careers globally, and find many of our leading artists additional revenue streams to complement their TV, film or theatre contracts, be it from branding, endorsements, PAs, IP rights, digital and publishing. An agent’s job is no longer just to secure them an acting contract, now it is to market and exploit that opportunity to maximum effect.

Which is why I oversaw our company merge with Jonathan Shalit’s company ROAR Global, to become part of the ROAR Group - a group of entertainment companies. Now, when an actor reaches public recognition, we have a literary department to find them an autobiography deal, a music department to find them a record deal, and even a broadcast department to find them non-scripted television work that might be outside of our acting agency’s remit.

And for actors without public recognition, it is the agent’s job to build and sustain a successful career with the client. If there is a job with a financial offer they’re not happy with - they should simply turn it down, or realise the job is nevertheless worthwhile for them and accept it gladly.

While unions set minimum rates, agents are there to negotiate. If you’re an actor, and your agent tells you there’s no negotiation when you think there could be, change agents. And if you are starting out in your career and unavoidably working on Equity minimum payments, then look at the bigger picture and know that if you believe in your talent, your career will progress to the point where you are earning far more than the average national salary, and at least you have that possibility, whereas many working in the public sector - for instance - never even have that potential.

The arts sector needs to follow the example of the environmental lobby and get to grips with economics if it is to win the argument for public funding, argues NESTA’s Hasan Bakhshi

If there is one thing we can all agree on it is the need for more sophisticated public funding decisions for culture — ones that are better understood by cultural institutions and the public. This demands a much more rigorous attempt to value culture than has been the case to date.

Economic impact is not the same as value. Economic impact refers to the measurement of the employment, output and productivity consequences of cultural activities. Properly executed, economic impact studies are essential for economic development agencies that see culture as an instrument of economic development. Valuation should be important both to cultural institutions which want to evaluate their performance against their core missions, and to funders who want to assess their return on “investment”.

Perversely, though, all the economic studies one sees in the cultural sphere tend to be of the economic impact variety. Next to none look at valuation, using the empirical tools endorsed by the Treasury’s Green Book — the government’s official guide to cost-benefit analysis — that public economists have deployed so successfully in other controversial areas like the environment and health.

Continuing our Low pay/no pay week, which today focuses on internships, the Old Vic’s John Richardson defends the theatre’s unpaid positions

The issue of low pay, or indeed no pay, is an incredibly important one. We applaud The Stage for shining a light on the practice of internships in the theatre world and across the board of the creative industries. Martin Bright’s piece is one side of the debate surrounding this issue. We felt it was important to give our perspective.

We are very proud of our internship programme at the Old Vic. We believe that our scheme provides a rewarding opportunity for volunteers from all walks of life to gain hands-on experience in a theatre environment. Our internships contribute to participants’ understanding of the theatre industry, and provide the opportunity to meet creatively-minded peers, thus also benefiting the wider arts community.

On the final day of our low pay/no pay week, we look at unpaid internships. Below, Martin Bright explains why he was inspired to create a charity that helps underprivileged young people work in the arts

Kevin Spacey and Sally Greene have made the Old Vic one of the most high-profile arts institutions in the country, but it turns out they have done it on the back of a small army of free interns.

Thankfully, BECTU has now challenged the Old Vic after it advertised six unpaid three-month internships. This is a hugely important statement of intent from the trade union, which represents technical staff.

How does the Old Vic get away with this when the minimum wage legislation is so clear? The simple answer is that everyone else is doing it. As the theatre told The Stage when it broke the story last month, it sees its intern scheme as offering a valuable opportunity for people to break into the business. It also pointed out, rather scandalously, that the Old Vic is a charitable trust, as if it is not at the same time a money-making operation.

It is now up to unions in the theatre to follow the lead of BECTU, which took a film company to a tribunal two years ago to claim back unpaid expenses for an intern and ended up establishing that interns should have been paid the minimum wage.

As we continue our Low pay/no pay week in print and online at The Stage, performer and Grads’ Club blogger Gemma Barrett gives her opinion

It is with great, and vested, interest I have been reading the various articles in this week’s Stage regarding the evermore pertinent issue of Low Pay/No Pay.

As a 2009 drama school graduate, 85% of my CV reads with fringe or low-budget films where the pay was either: expenses (in these cases I counted myself lucky), profit share (which as indicated by Stephen Spence, operates as a ‘partnership’ and therefore does not qualify for national minimum wage) or ‘revenue share’, whereupon the ticket sales for one particular night a week was divided between the cast (often more lucrative than the profit-share option).

In an ideal world, which is what we should all be striving for, all actors would be paid at least NMW. We have trained and are qualified to do our jobs, we have been cast and employed to do it and we deserve the same rights as the guy who works in the supermarket or the local pub.

An accountant doesn’t have to subsidise his income by moonlighting as a waiter. As a profession our worth is the value that we put on ourselves, and in an industry which is too often rubbished by many delightfully ignorant folk as ‘a bit of fun’ or ‘not a proper job’, it is even more important to stand up for our profession, our working conditions and our rights.

This is the theory. I understand it. I agree with it. Do I want to get paid for doing my job? The job which I trained long and hard for? The job which takes up every hour of my day and which I never clock out of? You’re darn tootin’ I do.

I know that it is the fear of never working again and the hope that “someone will change things on my behalf” that is perpetuating the situation. As long as this is the case, then employers will be allowed to get away with not paying out where it’s due.

I will, however, brave the branding of hypocrisy and cowardice and say that I do not, however, have the resolve to turn down the unpaid work and neither, in the current situation, do I want to. The alternative, for many of us, is simply not working.

It is all well and good to tell young graduates to abstain from these low paid/no pay gigs but in the current situation, what is the alternative? Wait for the phone to ring for that elusive PAID job? Following graduation from drama school I was immediately signed by an agent and did not get a single audition through her for an entire year. I did not have the opportunity to be employed by those companies that would pay for my wares. In the meantime I worked consistently on a LP/NP basis. Should I have sat on a moral high ground and refused to work? Demanded my rights? Frankly if I had done so I wouldn’t have got the job.

In the latest of our Low pay/no pay week posts to support this week’s special issue of The Stage, Equity assistant general secretary Stephen Spence explains why remuneration has become such a complicated issue in the performing arts, and what the union is doing to try and bring greater clarity

The issue of low pay/no pay is becoming more and more thorny for the entertainment industry. Equity members are increasingly reporting non-paid work being advertised. This includes fringe productions, student films, reality TV, the use of unpaid amateurs alongside paid performers, and stage management internship. Equity is currently establishing a Low Pay/No Pay Rights Working Party to advance discussion of this type of activity.

The issues are complex. In general terms, a worker is entitled to at least the national minimum wage (£5.93 an hour) but non-workers or voluntary workers for charities are not.

Many arts organisations are charities. Does that mean they can use people for nothing? Not necessarily, because workers, voluntary workers and non-workers can look remarkably similar from a legal point of view. It’s the details of how the arrangement was made and of what a person is actually doing that determines their status, and whether the NMW should be paid.

In general, though, Equity takes the view that performers and stage managers, due to the nature of what they do, are more likely to be workers than not. Equity encourages any member who wants the union to assess their situation, to bring their case to us for examination, if they think they should have been paid. In addition, if Equity believes a NMW issue exists on a production, the union writes to the producer.

The fringe can be difficult because there are cases where a genuine profit share/cooperative/collective (to use a few common examples) exists. Legally, these arrangements are probably actually partnerships, and partners are likely not to be workers and, therefore, not entitled to the national minimum wage.

As you can see, words such as ‘probably’ and ‘likely’ appear in these discussions, because one cannot make definitive statements.

Confused? I should imagine so. Just hold on to the Equity view that generally, outside partnerships, a performer or stage manager is likely to be a worker. For workers in the fringe, Equity recommends the union’s Fringe Contract based on the NMW.

Continuing our daily series of posts on the issue of working or low or no pay in the arts sector, performer David Grewcock, offers his opinion

Having read the thoughts of many during The Stage’s Low pay/no pay week, there seemed to be a strong feeling of negativity building. To readdress the balance, I felt it only fair to proffer a few success stories.

Even the major theatrical awards have reflected the huge successes of London’s unpaid fringe theatre with small productions being nominated alongside big hitters in this year’s Whatsonstage.com Awards and the Oliviers, with The Offies providing the fringe’s very own platform to celebrate great work.

So why does it still seem somewhat taboo? Not in a ‘naughty, wrong and bad’ sort of way, but there is still a bit of stigma to accepting a low pay/no pay job. In my experience — and having performed in one profit share production and assistant directed two others — I would be one of the first people to champion the opportunities they provide (my thoughts are focussed on fringe theatre and I appreciate there are further issues with LP/NP jobs in film, tours, T.I.E., etc.).

Of course, you need to be in a suitable financial position to accept the job — I was fortunate enough to have other jobs lined up pre/post profit share. And yes, the likelihood is that, come the end of the run, you still won’t make any money from the venture. In most cases, though, people don’t take these kind of jobs with the hope of a monetary reward. The incentives on offer can be far greater.

It has been billed as a celebration of The Phantom of the Opera’s 25 years in the West End, and for fans of the show — or Phans as they are best known — there is probably nothing more exciting than this October’s special production of the musical at the Royal Albert Hall.

What a shame then, that many of these die-hard Phans - many of whom you can guarantee will have spent their fair share of hard-earned cash on tickets at the show’s home at Her Majesty’s Theatre — will not be able to be a part of what Cameron Mackintosh has described as a “really special performance” and a “thrilling celebration”.

The problem, you see, is that tickets for this production, which will run for three shows only in October, are as high as £250 for a “premium arena” seat.

Yes, that’s right - £250.

Of course there are tickets at lower prices, but even a restricted view one sets you back more than £40.

So, how have Phans reacted? As you might expect, they are not very happy about it.

As we continue our Low Pay/No Pay week, we follow yesterday’s post by Equity committee member Karina Cornell with a perspective on the impact on fringe theatres by director Thomas Hescott.

Due to a production error this blog post was initially incorrectly attributed to producer Danielle Tarento. Our apologies to both parties for the error

It should be a no-brainer. You’d expect anyone who has worked on the fringe to campaign for the National Minimum Wage, and yet talk to most people in the industry and there seems little appetite to reform the fringe. The trouble is the basic human right to fair pay and conditions seems to be in direct conflict with the basic human right to freedom of expression.

Historically, fringe theatres sprung up in under-used rooms above pubs, or in derelict warehouses — anywhere vacant. The landlords would charge a peppercorn rent, and with a modest budget for design you could pretty much ensure that profit share meant just that, and that a healthy percentage of the ticket price was going directly back to the company creating the play. The fringe was seen as empowering — a place that bypassed agents, casting directors, and literary managers, anyone who might say no.

The relationship between artist and audience was direct — the audience paid for a ticket, that payment went straight to the artist. Seen in those terms, who would want to complicate an empowering artistic enterprise with red tape and minimum wage?

As ever, when the artists move in, the rent goes up. Open a theatre and watch house prices soar. Increasingly, those peppercorn rents become commercial rents, and those artists who originally rented the space become companies acting as middlemen and sub-letting their space to emerging fringe companies. As the rent increases the exchange between artist and audience becomes devalued — suddenly profit share is simply code for no pay.

The trouble is that if you enforce minimum wage on to the fringe, the fringe will collapse. Fear stops us looking at what our industry could be, in case we destroy what we already have, but maybe there is an alternative both to the current state of play, and a fringe scene decimated by legislation?

In the first of our extracts from this week’s No pay/Low pay special issue of The Stage, Equity Young Members’ Committee member Karina Cornell voices her opinion

I’ve come to realise that low pay/no pay is the biggest issue for most young performers. It divides people across the industry and is highly emotive on both sides. But to me it is as much about respect as it is money.

Actors used to be admired, but somewhere in the last ten years it seems we have sunk to the bottom of the budget list. I have been that actor — 16-hour days on set for no money and two years later being told the show will never be finished. In fringe, juggling four-week rehearsals with a bar job, inviting professionals along, but having the show pulled after the first night because the producer and director had a falling out. Performing to a sold out 300-seater for two weeks wondering ‘where are the £20 ticket sales going?’ Feeling isolated but somehow pathetically grateful to have got the part.

It’s time to choose. Either give in and work for poor or no pay because we’re too frightened to make a fuss, or stand up, individually and together, and say this is wrong. I am worth more.

Arts jobs offered for no or low pay have become the issue of the day for many working in the performing arts — especially for those at the beginning of their careers.

Badly paid or unpaid work has always been a feature of the arts world, an industry in which supply of workers tends to far outstrip demand. And, as the wider economic situation deteriorates, it appears to be getting worse.

This raises a number of questions. Should actors ever work for nothing, or less than minimum wage on the fringe? What about in a student film, or as an extra? When is this useful experience for the CV, when is it volunteering, when is it exploitation? Is it right for theatres to offer unpaid internships? Are they a good step up in the industry and an act of beneficent altruism, or are they limiting the pool of possible workers to youngsters from affluent backgrounds who can afford to work for nothing?

These are big, difficult questions without straightforward answers. That’s why we are taking a close look at the issue in this week’s issue of The Stage, which goes on sale on Thursday, July 7. We’ll have contributions for a union leader, a director, a producer, a theatre owner, and, of course, performers. And between now and then, a small selection of the range of opinions will also appear here, on the Newsblog.

We’re sure you will have your own views, so please get in touch, either by commenting on the blog posts, writing to editor@thestage.co.uk or sending your letters to The Stage, Stage House, 47 Bermondsey Street, London, SE1 3XT. And, if you’re on Twitter, add the hashtag #lowpaynopay to your tweets for us to find them.

See also:

• Equity Young Members’ Committee member Karina Cornell
• Fringe theatre director Thomas Hescott
• Performer and Stage blogger David Grewcock
• Equity assistant general secretary Stephen Spence
• Performer and Stage blogger Gemma Barrett
• Founder of New Deal of the Mind Martin Bright

• Old Vic producer John Richardson

• Read more about what’s in the Low Pay/No Pay special issue of The Stage